I
January 17, 1903.1
weight, considering the construction of the floor, Evan Dougherty, an ov rseer in the Public Works, who left hospital to give evidence and was accommodated with a chair, said that when he went down to the scene on the afternoon of the collapse he saw some persons removing 100 bags of what was described to him as starch from the ruins of No. 12, Taug Loi Inne, bat He could not say whether the big3 acin illy cam from the first floor. By the way they were lying, be judged they came from the first flor. Henry Ernest Yorke Haggard, who ex- amined the premises after the collapss, gave the thickness of the wall which fel as 13 inches on the ground floor, 14 inches on the first floor, and nine inche; on the twa top floors. That was less than the thickness required by the Ordinance for top fl 1018. From what he saw, he should not say that the wall was a good one, and nearly all the joists were decayed at the end. Witness was of opinion that the floor fel first owing to being over weighted, dragging ont a portion of the wall and so bringing the rest down,
Examined by Mr. 'Looker, witness said he examined the beams, the ends of which were decayed, and some of them had the appearance of Laving broken off. Some of the beams of the first floor of No. 12, he was of opinion, gave way in the midle, and if the wall had collapsed first those beams would probably not have been broken at all.
Percy Thom 18 Cisp, inspector of buildings,
said he obtained from a Chiuaman at the collapsed houses th description and weight of goods stored in No. 12; the total weight was nearly 344 tous, but witness could not say how it had been distributed. His theory as to the cause of the collap e was that the weight on the floors caused the ouls of the rotten joists to break and throw the the weight of the goods ou the wall pushing the br ckwork out anl'causing the wall to collapse.
Arthur Turner, architect, was called by Mr. Looker and testified to the satisfactory nature of the shoring. He was also examined by Mr. Bowley, and stated that the pulling down of a house was always a dangerous operation, for the Chinese coolie was rather reckless in the way of dropping bricks; it was not dangerous, how- ever, t the adjoining houses.
Leung Yi Tai, the scaffolder, was re-ex- animed by Mr. B wley as to the relative cost of the shorings on the job, after which the hearing wis adjourned.
|
The enquiry was concluded on the 13th inst. Y.k Foo Mun, manager of a Chin se mercan- tile firm which at the time of the collapso occupied promises in Wing Lok Street and Taug Loi Lane, was recalled and examined by Mr. Bowley as to the goods stored in No. 12, Tung Loi Lane when the accid ut occurred. There were 130 bags of pepper and 83go-flour, 50 bags being on the first floor and 80 on t'e ground floor. The extra support. to the first floor were put up three years ago, when the firm tok up tenancy of the premises, and some of the old joists supporting the first floor were decayed when the collapse occurred, but none of the supporting timbers were decaye.l.
In answer to Mr. Looker, witness said that the entries in the book from which Le was quoting the amount of goods stored in and issued from the premises were mad by a head osolie, but witness could vonch for their aconracy, as the book was shown to him every night for the puriose of enabling him to check the entries by an examination of the goods.
i
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
places, on the two upper floors. The point he wished to emphasize, said Mr. Looker, was that these people-he last witness's firm-sero in the habit of storing cargo tan f at high on ti e upper floors of the premis 8.
His Worship-I don't think it is evidence. Mr. Looker-I think it is evidency of the way these premises were used as godowns.
Mr. Bowley-There is nothing on the face of the letter to show that it ref rs to houses in
Wing Lok Stree', or even to houses in Hongkong.
His Worship-I don't think the letter ought to be admitted. Anything with referance to what took place a year ago is not rol vant.
с
Mr. Looker-Very well, j‹nr Worship. Addressing the jury, Mr. Looker reĉeired to the objects of the enquiry, and said there was a good deal of difference batwe criminal negligenc. and ordinary negligence. Under the former head the jury had to me the c ueln iou that somebody, from the owners down to the men actually employed on the work, had been guilty of negligence of such a description as to be utterly reckless; but if the jury found on the other hand, that the precautions which had been taken in the present case were the precau- tions suggest d by earlier experience in similar cases, then they had no right to bring in a verdict of criminal uegligence. Mr. Looker sail he had bo n informed by the Crown Solicitor that there whatever on the architects in connection with wa no responsibility
the collapse, and he' won d therefore bring the case down to the contractor and shorer, against whom, he submitted, thera evidenes that end possibly evict them of criminal negligenc, Mr. Looker detailed the hist ry of the house, and compared their collap o with that of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, which, after standing for years and years in the position indicated by its nam had recently fallen. Now, who could be blamed for that?
Mr. Bowley-It wasn't the Leaning Tower of Pisa; it was the Campanils at Venice that fell. (Laughter.)
15
anthorities for their guidance, and they then His Worship addressed the jury, quoting retired, to return later with a verdict that the cause of the deaths of the two deceased was the collapse of the party wall between Nos. 12 and 14, Tang Loi Lane, and thit the deaths of the deceased were not the result of criminal negligence.
This concludes the series of enquiries.
CRICKET.
HK.C.C. v. THE NAVY.
Raw, cherless and damp, the 10th inst, was anything bat au ideal day for cricket. In spite, however, of the uupleasant climatio con- ditions, the above match was played on the Club ground and ended in a draw very much in favour of the Navy. A good deal of difficulty was experienced in getting together a Club team, ad the eleven that erritually took the field could not by any means be considered a representative one, keeper and weak in bitting and fielding, it is Minus an efficient wicket-
not to be wondered at that the Club osme off secoal bost; indeed, not a little credit is due to
their strong opponsuts, the team for their game struggle against
It would 8.0m
that already the criokst season is on the no wane and unless it is lo exira before its t ́me, greater keeuniss mast be displayed by the playing members. As nanal, a late start was made, chiefly owing to the unpunctuality of several members of the Club XI, and it was fiv mi.ut's past noon when W. Dixon seat down the first ball from the City Hall end. Ward hal beaten Garde in the "spiu of the o›in" but contrary to custom, and, as it turned out, with disastrons results, he put his op- ponents in first. Garde and Bird were the first pair of batsmen and Bird shared the bowling
Mr. Looker beggel pardon, and said that anyway the blame for the collapse of the Campanile could not re sonably be fixed on anyone. In the case under review there was certainly reasonable ground that it was the rottennes of the first floor joists of No. 12 aid the extra weight being placed on them that caused the collap o first of the floor and then of the wall. What actually onsed the col pse of the wall it was imposible to say, but that it did collapse was not necessarily any body's fault, and, Mr. Looker enoluded, he would submit that, so far as concerned any of the parties who were engaged in the pulling down and rebuilding and the shoring of the wall, they were not guilty of any negli zenca at all.
|
|
Mr. Bowley said they were not trying the case of the fat of the Campanile; if they were. he thought there would be evidence to show that building operations were going on in the vi ioity, and that the tower had not bon pr perly shored up. Regarding the present c188, however, there were two theories to acconat for the collapse, one that the first floor of No. 12 broke ad brought the house; down, and the other that the wall being shaken by th building operations, fe'l through, and thought, went to show that the floor was not o used the collapse. The evidence, Mr. Bowley
might dismi that theory of the collapse exces irely weighted, and therefore the jury altogether. The cause of the collapse, as shown by the evidence, was the disturbance of the wall by the building operations, and the e ntractor and shorer were the only persons responsible for owner of No. 14 refused to remove the goods from the wo.k. It had been given in evidence that the
This conclud d the evidence, and Mr. Looker and shorer put up a partition after the goods the premises, and at his request the contrac'or said he wished to put in a copy of a letter which had been moved only a few feet from the wall might throw some light on the subjeo:-one to permit the lateral sho es to go up. written by Messrs. Stephens and l'homsou,
But solicitors, to Mr. Chatham, Dir etor of Public to the shopkeeper that there was danger in there was no evidence to show they pointed out Works, on 27th December, 1901, requesting him what he did. The building contractor and the to inspect these premises at 126-128, Wing Lok scaffolding contractor were the two men wh Street and to declare the wall dangerous. In did know the danger, and in spite of that his answer, continued Mr. Looker, Mr. hat knowledge they did as the shopkeeper asked ham sad he could not accede to the request, and them-put up the partition and left the first added that he regarded it as litte short of floor unsupported by sloping shores because of miraculous that there had not been a serious that partition, as they said. Mr. Bowley, who collapse of the building hitherto, as on visiting reviewed the evidence at length, submitted that the premises he found bags, presumably con- taining rice, stacked about ten feet high intirely on the contractor and shorer,
the blame, if there was any blame, rested en-
By a juryman-The goods mentioned were not leaning against the party wall between Nos, 12 and 14, Tang Loi Lane.
with W. Dixon. The start was an unfortunate one for the Nary, as, with the sword at 7, Garde was well taken in the slips by J. T Dixon off his brother's bowling. Bedwell, the next mi, succumbed to the first ball he received, and with but 5 runs added to the score, Bird was caught at point off a very ‘amo stroke. Here, however, the Naval dis- asters and the Club anccessos ended, ak, on Cooke joining Jackson who had followed Bedwell a determined stand was made and the two batsmen defied all attemp's to dislodge them. Both played good, sound cricket and took the fooru to 60 when the tiffin bell rang. After fifin Jackson was la'e-he mistook the time for continuing-and so, by the courtesy of the Club Caɔtain, Raymond was allowed to gain instead. The last-comer might have been caught at cover off the first ball be received and
but after w.s badly missed by Hickling if the second, down and played exellent cricket. In the thes two scapes, he settled meantime, Cooke was playing uncommonly wil. changes in the bowling seamed to have little or his cutting being especially fine, and frequent
however, Raymond was bowled for a useful 32 no effect upon him or his partner. At length, and Jackson continned his innings. He should have bee i caught at the wicket almost, at once. but after this he, too played soundly and he and Cooks were still together when; at 3.15, being 197 for 4 Garde applied tho
tained one 6 and do his bat for an
innings was somewhat -a hard refur 1 to J.T. D
i spite of these little defects, hi wicket, and a very hard drivi thoroughly gɔ ɔd and a treitti, ato 39 not out was a carefully played inning to him almost equally with Cooke blonge tha credit of stopping the rot which at one time appeared imminent. None of the Club bowlers met with much sao đá, bat of them bowed far bettor then analysis shows, the Naval men hav first, considerable dificulty in scoring rapidity, and bad their efforts been backed
|
en out.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.